Not surprisingly, many of the early predictions from the climate change
folks have been inaccurate. Of course, they get the big subject
right—the global atmosphere has trapped more energy and usually more
energy leads to more heat. Much error is just an occupational hazard of
trend projections. It is tempting to take a data curve and stick
something on the end. When this practice fails—and it does quite
often—it is usually because the model has left out some important
complicating factor.

Which is why the following story is so interesting. Huge icebergs are
breaking loose from Antarctica—global warming, check. But because they
are so large, they sort of tow around their own weather systems and
their meltwater supports a carbon absorbing phytoplankton. Even better,
it seems, these island-sized ice cubes cool some significant areas.
Well, duh! It takes a LOT of energy to melt ice—says the man writing
on a night headed for -10°F (-23°C).

Unfortunately, whatever benefit is to be gained from melting the
Antarctic ice sheets, it is a one-time deal. If these little iceberg
micro-climates gain the planet a few years, we would be very wise to
spend that time building the necessary zero-carbon-emission green
society.

Researchers have found that the plume of cold water released from
massive icebergs increases carbon storage in the seas - far more than
previously thought. This negative feedback loop significantly slows
climate change.

It seems a paradox: giant icebergs, a symbol of climate change, can actually slow down warming of the Earth.

This is possible because the cold, mineral-rich water melting icebergs
leave in their wakes nourishes phytoplankton. These tiny marine
organisms take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and when they die,
sink to the ocean floor to create a literal carbon bank.

"When phytoplankton grow, they give off fecal matter and die, and some
of that material sinks deep in the ocean, where it stays for centuries
or millennia," explained study author Grant Bigg, an Earth systems
professor at the University of Sheffield in England.

Particularly giant icebergs - that is, those at least 18 kilometers long - have this effect, due to the area covered.

Research for the paper,
published in "Nature Geoscience," analyzed satellite images of giant
icebergs in the Southern Ocean around the Antarctic, measuring the
intensity of the color of chlorophyll produced by phytoplankton.

This "plume of productivity extends five to 10 times from the iceberg,"
Bigg said - meaning "the net carbon storage is much larger than
suspected."

"It's essentially slowing the rate at which carbon dioxide is remaining in the atmosphere," Bigg told DW.

Rising global temperatures are causing more icebergs to calve from ice sheets and ice fields

The concentration of atmospheric carbon is currently around 400 parts
per million, and is increasing by roughly 2 ppm each year. "Giant
icebergs have slowed that increase by 5 to 10 percent," Bigg said.

Antarctica is warming faster than other world regions, which is causing
the ice sheet to melt and contributing to sea level rise. Warming there
is often understood in terms of a positive feedback loop, where warming
causes more ice to melt, thus accelerating further warming.

Some research indicates that warming in Antarctica has already reached a tipping point for melting,from which there would be no return.

The finding that melting icebergs can slow global warming was a
surprise, as the scale of the phenomenon hadn't before been known.

"We still don't fully understand the climate system - I wouldn't be
surprised if there were further both negative and positive feedback that
could possibly accelerate or slow down global warming," Bigg concluded.

The
New York Times published a report on the effects that clouds exert on long-term
average warming of the globe.Most
climate scientists agree that clouds will have a neutral or a positive effect,
i.e., one that acts to amplify the warming effect of the greenhouse effect and
make it stronger.The report identifies
the work of Dr. Richard Lindzen as expressing the opposite view that cirrus
clouds will act to reduce the effect of warming as the temperature rises.This hypothesis is considered discredited
among climate scientists.To help
understand this issue, this post provides background on the processes involving
clouds and water vapor in the overall energy balance of the globe.

Introduction.The role of water vapor and cloud cover in assessing the long-term warming of the
earth
is complex, both with respect to observation (data gathering) and modeling.A schematic identifying the processes by which
water vapor and clouds can affect the energy balance at the earth’s surface is
shown below.

Processes
involved in the global rate of absorbing or radiating energy due to clouds and
water vapor.Units are given in watts
per square meter (W m-2), where 1 watt is a unit of power, i.e. a
unit describing the rate of energy gain or loss per second.The numbers given in the graphic represent
the result of measurements and modeled calculation by the authors for March
2000 to May 2004.

Darker yellow downward arrows, left, show incoming power per
meter squared for visible solar light.Paler yellow arrows, right, show outgoing power
per meter squared due to heat (infrared) radiation, as well as heat radiation
from the atmosphere back to the earth’s surface due to the greenhouse effect
from CO2, water vapor and clouds.Evapotranspiration (center) combines bulk evaporation and transport of
water from the ground to the air by the transpiration of green plants.Latent heat (cloud in center) is explained in
this post http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/ice-water-and-water-vapor.html.

For sunlight
reaching the earth, the sun's energy (visible light) is re-emitted as heat
(infrared) energy. Water vapor is transparent to visible sunlight
(just as is CO2), but water vapor and clouds act as greenhouse elements with respect
to heat energy (also just as does CO2). As shown in the diagram, a)
clouds directly reflect a portion of the visible light from the sun back into
space, and b) clouds as well as atmospheric water vapor exert a greenhouse
effect on heat (infrared) radiation originating at the earth’s surface.This greenhouse effect absorbs a large
portion of the heat and re-emits it in all directions, shown in the diagram as
continuing on out into space and returning to the earth’s surface as heat.

At the very bottom
of the diagram, the net total result of the all the positive and negative
contributions to the energy balance is shown as 0.9 W m-2, a small
net warming effect.It is important to
see from this diagram that since this final result is a very small number
arrived at by adding and subtracting very large numbers, any small error in the
inputs will have a disproportionately large effect on the final result, and
could easily turn a positive energy balance into a negative balance.For example, even the reported outcome for the global average is the result
of a cooling of 15.6 W m-2
for land (about 30% of the earth's surface) and a warming of 6.9 W m-2 for the oceans (about 70% of the surface).

The New York
Times recently published a
report
discussing scientists’ current understanding of the role of clouds in the long-term
increase in the global average temperature.This involves new enhanced measurement methods as well as refined inputs
into global climate models (GCMs; also general circulation models).As noted above, clouds can contribute both to
more cooling (reflection of incoming sunlight), and to warming (because clouds
and water vapor contribute a greenhouse effect based on the heat (infrared) radiation leaving the earth’s
surface).According to the report, the
broad conclusion of the great majority of scientists is that, in balance, a neutral
or positive contribution to the overall global temperature dominates.(Clouds are only one of many factors
accounted for in GCMs.)

Background.Climate
scientists have reached a broad consensus that our planet is warming. By
measuring the long-term average temperature at stations all around the globe, as
well as by satellite in recent decades, they find that the global temperature
is increasing, starting with the industrial revolution. Scientists attribute
this warming to carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, that results from burning the
fossil fuels that power global industrialization, as well as to other
greenhouse gases produced industrially. These gases act to trap part of the
heat radiation released by sunlight striking the surface of the earth that
would otherwise escape into space. CO2 has been a component of the
earth's atmosphere for millions of years. Yet its concentration has increased
abruptly since the industrial revolution began due to mankind's burning of
fossil fuels to provide energy.The
greenhouse effect that it exerts on the planet's climate has been enhanced as a
result.

Of the CO2
that enters the atmosphere, a portion is absorbed by green plants as they grow
(but is released as they die and decay), and a portion is absorbed into the
waters of the oceans. The majority stays in the atmosphere for at least 100
years, or longer, as there is no additional mechanism that removes it. Before
the industrial revolution the CO2 cycle was in equilibrium; the gas
produced by animals and decaying vegetation was absorbed by the oceans and
growing plants. But the carbon contained in fossil fuels is not recycled back
to the geological reservoirs that the fuels came from. This carbon follows a
one-way route from underground reservoirs to new, additional atmospheric CO2
once burned to supply energy.

Water is a greenhouse substance. Water also exerts a greenhouse effect,
whether as water vapor (i.e., a gas) or a liquid (including droplets in clouds
and fog). In this regard, atmospheric water differs in many ways from CO2.
Its vapor concentration in air is much higher than that of CO2; at
"room temperature" the capacity of water in air is about 25 parts per
thousand (25,000 parts per million) whereas currently the content of CO2
is about 390 parts per million. For this reason, the greenhouse
effect from atmospheric water is much stronger than that of atmospheric CO2.
Without the greenhouse effect of water, ambient temperatures on the earth would
be far below freezing. Second, locally the actual water vapor content can be
anywhere from 0 to 100% of the upper limit (the relative humidity). Globally
the long-term cycle of water between water vapor, clouds and fog, rain and
snow, glaciers and groundwater, and the oceans remains at equilibrium, in the
absence of global warming. But thirdly, the capacity of air to hold water vapor
(as the gas) increases by about 7% per degree C (3.9% per degree F). Thus as
the long-term global average temperature rises because of the CO2
greenhouse effect, the overall intensity of the global water cycle will grow.

The water cycle,
including all the components mentioned above, is included in global climate
models. The role played by clouds in various GCMs is modeled with different
parameters. As shown in the graphic, some of the sunlight directly striking
clouds, especially low clouds (cumulus) and middle, layered clouds (stratus),
from space is reflected back into space as unaltered visible light. This
reflected light never reaches the earth and does not contribute to the
greenhouse effect. The highest (cirrus) clouds, however, are high enough to be
formed of ice microcrystals rather than droplets of liquid water. It is
believed that cirrus clouds permit most sunlight to pass through to the earth,
in contrast to the behavior of lower clouds, while still retaining the ability
to act as greenhouse elements, retaining a portion of the heat energy of
re-emitted light.

Skeptics: Clouds
will help cool the planet.
The New York Times article devoted considerable emphasis to the views of
certain scientist skeptics, especially the meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, affirming that clouds will
contribute a cooling effect as the global temperature rises.Dr. Lindzen has studied climate for more than
five decades.According to the Times, he
believes that cirrus clouds, especially over the tropics, will serve as an
“iris” (i.e. the portion of the mammalian eye, or of a camera, that regulates
how much light reaches the retina, or the film) as the earth warms.Warmer atmospheric temperatures, in his view,
will lead to a thinning of cirrus clouds that will permit more heat (infrared)
radiation to escape into space.This
negative effect on retention of heat will reduce the overall warming of the
planet.

The Times reports
that these views have been warmly received by politicians and others, such as the
Heartland Institute, who are skeptical of the role of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases in the long-term warming of the planet.According to the Times “most mainstream
researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited”.As an example, an article in 2009 by
Trenberth and Fassulo
, states “Many papers refute the negative feedback
and iris hypothesis of Lindzen et al. [2001]”, citing as examples Hartmann and Michelsen,
2002,“No evidence for iris”, Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 83, 249–254; Randall et al., 2007, “Climate models and their evaluation”, in Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
edited by S. Solomon et al., pp. 590– 662, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York; and
evidence for a slight positive feedback by Lin et al., 2002, “The iris
hypothesis: A negative or positive cloud feedback?”, J. Clim., 15, 3–7.

The Times further
reports that a paper published by Dr. Lindzen in 2009 included errors in data
analysis that were identified by other scientists and subsequently affirmed by him.In addition, a more recent manuscript was
criticized by peer reviewers for a “prestigious American journal” and was
rejected for publication.This is
significant (see this earlier post
on this blog), since review by anonymous peers ensures that analysis and
conclusions expressed are supported by the data (usually peer review does not
assess the accuracy or validity of the data themselves).Conversely, contemporary authors of journal
articles thank their peer reviewers for offering constructive suggestions that improve
the final form of the paper (for examples see Science 27 April 2012: Vol. 336
no. 6080 pp. 455-458, DOI: 10.1126/science.1212222 (see Acknowledgements); and Science 27 April 2012: Vol. 336 no. 6080 pp. 462-466;
DOI: 10.1126/science.1218389(see Acknowledgements)).

Other articles
also assess cloud feedbacks.NASA discussed
(accessed May 5, 2012) long-term warming of the earth.In addition to forecasting significant
warming by the end of this century, this article states climate feedbacks could
more than double predicted warming, including feedbacks “due to snow and ice,
water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle.”As the air warms, the ability of air to hold water vapor increases, as
noted earlier.As described above,
clouds have both positive (greenhouse effect) and negative (reflection of
sunlight) feedback effects on warming.On balance, according to NASA, “most climate models predict a slight
overall positive feedback or amplification of warming due to a reduction in low
cloud cover.”

Discussing the role
of cirrus clouds in this same post, NASA points out that they emit only small
amounts of radiation because of their cold temperature.Thus, being composed of (solid) water, cirrus
clouds strongly absorb heat (infrared) radiation reaching them from below, and
retain a significant fraction of that heat, leading to higher atmospheric temperature
than would be the case if they were absent.NASA states that in a world with higher average global temperatures, the
air would have more water content that leads to formation of more cirrus
clouds.In this view CO2-induced
greenhouse warming would be amplified by the presence of more heat-retaining
cirrus clouds in the upper atmosphere.

In a different post
dated Dec. 13, 2010,
NASA summarized work
(accessed May 5, 2012) by Andrew Dessler of TexasA&MUniversity that was scheduled to be published in the
peer-reviewed journal Science.Dessler identified a positive feedback effect on CO2-induced
greenhouse warming arising from clouds, based on studies of data from 2000 to
2010 on low- and high-altitude clouds.Dessler showed “that clouds amplify the warming we get from carbon
dioxide.…The cloud feedback…does amplify the warming we get from greenhouse
gases.”His work also validates the
ability of current GCMs to simulate observed cloud feedback effects reasonably
well.

Clement and coworkers
(see also a commentary
by a nonparticipating scientist) analyzed the correlation of cloud cover (low-
and mid-level clouds, excluding cirrus clouds) and sea surface temperature over
a large portion of the northeast Pacific ocean at subtropical latitudes, using
existing records, for the period 1952-2007.In the region monitored there is a reduction in cloud cover when the sea
surface temperature is warmer and vice versa.This indicates that clouds interact with sea surface temperature in a
way that amplifies warming.The
scientists then assessed whether existing GCMs in the archive of the worldwide
consortium of climate scientists could reproduce their findings.Only one of 18 models assessed succeeded in
reproducing their findings in response to the warming induced by the known
increase in greenhouse gases that occurred over this period.

Trenberth and Fassulo, in the article mentioned
earlier,
published in 2009, modeled the effects of the complete cloud cover from 1950 to
2100 using all models in the worldwide archive.Although they found considerable variation among models, some yielded
projections for positive feedback effects from clouds, i.e., that increased
surface temperatures would lead to effects on the cloud cover that amplified
the increase.

Conclusions

The New York Times published an article
analyzing the effects of clouds on the warming of the planet.It devoted considerable attention to skeptics
who doubt that mankind’s activities and the
greenhouse effect have led to long-term warming, and who have subscribed to the renegade
view of Dr. Lindzen that cirrus clouds will act as an iris, releasing more heat
energy to space as the earth warms.

This post has presented background
information showing that the contributions of clouds to the global climate are
many, varied, and may be subject to considerable variability both in data
analysis and in modeling their effects in GCMs.It is important to understand that final effects are small numbers
arrived at as the difference between large positive and negative contributions from
individual processes.Small changes in
evaluating these processes can therefore lead to large changes in the final
contribution, including changing from a net warming effect to a net cooling
effect.

The consensus among the community
of climate scientists is that the iris effect proposed by Dr. Lindzen is
supported neither by experiment nor by GCM modeling.

Sea
level rise is caused by expansion of ocean water as the world’s temperature
rises, and by net melting of glaciers, ice sheets and ice shelves.Ice will continue melting as long as the
temperature remains above the freezing point.

Sea level rise is
already impacting coastal cities in the U. S. and elsewhere.Regular flooding based on high tide schedules
is now happening, for example, in South Florida
and Norfolk, VA.

Climate models
project future increases in sea level rise in all scenarios examined, for
modeling as distant as 300 years from now.This will clearly damage coastal cities around the world, inflicting
major property damage and requiring extensive, expensive renovation projects.

The recent report
by the Risky Business Project advocates taking a business-oriented risk
assessment approach to global warming.As applied to the occurrence of sea level rise, risk management involves
assessing harms and evaluating investments in both adaptation to continued sea
level rise and mitigation of continued global warming.Such investments would benefit people by
protecting them from future harms arising from sea level rise, and by expanding
economic activity from new projects undertaken.

Introduction.An
earlier postprovided a tutorial
explaining the sources of global sea level rise (SLR).One important factor is the increase in volume that the waters of the
oceans occupy as their temperature increases.Since the oceans are contained, the only way to accommodate the increased
volume is to expand upward, contributing to SLR.The
second significant contribution comes from melting of ice that originates from
a land-based source.Glaciers and ice
sheets, exposed to air on their upper surfaces, melt whenever the air temperature
is higher than the melting point of water.Ice shelves, driven from land-based ice sheets to float on the ocean,
melt from below whenever the sea water temperature is above its freezing
point.

The contribution
from temperature-caused expansion of the oceans proceeds as long as the ocean
temperature continues increasing.It
will cease if the ocean temperature stabilizes.The contribution from melting reflects the temperature with reference to
the melting point of the ice.This
contribution continues to add new liquid water to the oceans as long as the
temperature of air, or of the ocean, is above the melting point of the
ice.This process continues undiminished
even when the air temperature or the ocean temperature stabilizes at a value
higher than the melting point.

Sea level rise
is already affecting the U. S.

South
Florida.On March 19, 2014 the (U. S.) PBS NewsHour broadcast a news feature on ocean flooding in South Florida.The frame below, taken from the broadcast,
shows a street in Miami Beach, a municipality built on a barrier island facing
the Atlantic Ocean, flooded with ocean water on a sunny day.

Such events have
occurred with some regularity in recent years.The broadcast included an interview with Prof. Hal Wanless, of the University of Miami, who ascribes these events to worsening sea
level rise.It reported that the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers predicts a 3-7 in. (7.6-18 cm) rise in sea level for South Florida by 2030, and 9-24 in. (23-61 cm) by 2060.

In response, the
Miami Beach Public Works Department initially planned a US$200 million
remediation program over the next 20 years to fend off flooding and
encroachment by the ocean.Recently the municipality of Miami Beach agreed to double its investment, to US$400
million.More broadly, a four-county consortium
in the area is planning a concerted program to address the expected sea level
rise.The local politicians are
grappling with the political pressures opposing the extensive investments needed
to prepare for the expected worsening of the problem.

A conference in
June 2012 on the effect of global warmingfocused on the projected loss of land area in
South Florida over the next century due to sea level
rise.It is foreseen that the Florida
Key islands would be lost, and that Miami and the surrounding area would be small
islands in the encroaching Atlantic
Ocean.The report notes that this area has the most
people and property endangered by sea level rise of any in the U. S.

Norfolk, Virginia.Norfolk is at the confluence of the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay and the James
River.It is the site of a major base of the U. S.
Navy which is a principal driver of economic activity in the region.The area has been subjected to continued
episodes of tidal flooding along its coastline.In a report on the PBS Newshour in December 2012
its mayor, Paul Fraim noted that the city is repeatedly flooded at high tides,
which is worsening with passing time.The
screen shot below shows a home that been repeatedly flooded in recent times.

Still frame from
PBS Newshour broadcast on sea level rise affecting NorfolkVA.The photo shows the
home of Bob Parsons, who has documented the many times flooding has affected
his home.

The mayor stated
that parts of the city might not be habitable in 15 years, and that the city is
already renovating impacted areas by raising home structures to higher levels,
and raising roads.Relocation to higher
ground is also envisioned.The U. S.
Navy is replacing 14 piers because of rising water at a cost of US$490-560
million.

The Washington Post
reported
that according to the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Norfolk, together with a 600 mile section along the U. S. East Coast, is a “sea
level rise hotspot”, with SLR
expected to be 3-4 times the worldwide average.Much of this is due to a change in the Atlantic Ocean Gulf Stream that
directs more water toward the U. S. eastern shore.Norfolk in addition is slowly subsiding into the
sea due to geological factors.A
Virginia study projects that SLR
in the Norfolk area could be 5 ½ feet (1.68 m) by the end of this century if
the world does not institute mitigation measures to curb global warming.

The report states
that Norfolk engaged a Dutch firm to design an
adaptation plan to protect the city.The
resulting project, involving new flood gates, building higher roads and
renovating the storm sewer system would protect against water 1 foot (31 cm)
higher, and cost US$1 billion, more than the city’s current annual budget.

Sea Level Rise
Around the U. S.An interactive map of coastal and tidal
regions susceptible to ocean flooding around the U. S. shows the increasing loss of land area as
the sea level rises between 1 foot and 9 feet (30 cm and 274 cm).

Projections of future SLR show severe further effects to the year 2100, and the
year 2300.Schaeffer and coworkers
(Nature Climate Change 2012; DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1584)
developed projections based on the warming trajectories arising from several
scenarios for emissions of greenhouse gases.These range from a continued annual emissions rate in an essentially
unconstrained scenario to one with a hypothetical stringent reduction to a zero
emissions rate in 2016.Their results
are summarized in the following graphic.

Projected sea level
rise under various greenhouse gas emission scenarios, ranging from
unconstrained (CPH reference) to stringent reduction to zero
emissions in 2016 (Zero 2016).The
colored bands give full uncertainty values within the graphic, and the shaded
bars to the right, for only two cases, the lowest and highest SLR projections.Note that the time axis (horizontal) and the SLR axis (vertical) use different scales in a
and b.a, Projections for
2000-2100; the vertical scale runs to about 43 in. b, Historical data
from 1000 to 2000, and projections from 2000 to 2300 with the vertical gray
shading showing the present 21st century; the vertical scale runs to
about 13 feet.

The results of
Schaeffer and coworkers reflect in numbers the notions expressed in the
Introduction; namely, that as long as the global temperature operates to keep
temperatures over land ice, and under ocean-based ice shelves, above their
melting points, ice will melt and contribute to further SLR.Temperature-induced expansion of the oceans continues in scenarios with
continued emissions of greenhouse gases (the upper projections in the
graphics), but this writer presumes that this contribution is reduced in
scenarios with limits on emissions (lower projections in the graphics).And since global temperature depends on the
total accumulated level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the temperature
cannot go back to lower values, low enough to keep ice sheets and ice shelves
frozen.In contrast, panel b in
the graphic above shows that sea level was essentially unchanged from the year
1000 until the beginning of the industrial revolution when humanity began
burning fossil fuels.

Conclusion

The recent Risky
Businessreport
highlights the important role that risk analysis can play in planning future
responses to global warming.The effects
of warming can be viewed as shifting a probability curve giving the likelihood
of occurrence of an extreme event with major damaging effects “to the right”,
i.e., in the direction of higher likelihood of occurrence.An example drawn from the topic of this post
could be an extreme effect from sea flooding due to rising temperatures.Such disasters wreak significant
socioeconomic hardship on those affected.The report suggests that risk management could develop programs for
investing in infrastructure to minimize future risk.

The risk of
harms from SLR is extremely high, according to the model projections shown
in the graphic above.In the framework
of the Risky Business report, risk management under these circumstances leads
to the conclusion that investments to help mitigate further warming, as well as
adaptive investments to strengthen infrastructure to withstand SLR, are both warranted.Risk management should be adopted worldwide,
since global warming is a universal phenomenon involving all nations that emit
greenhouse gases, and the effects of SLR likewise are felt worldwide.

The risks arise because around the world, many cities
are situated along coastlines, and as countries develop their populations tend
to leave rural settings and gravitate to their cities.Among developed countries also, many cities
are in coastal settings.

Focusing on the U. S., the examples of regular inundations from
the ocean, described above, are not exceptional.SLR aggravates tidal flooding, and sets the
stage for more damaging storm surges in extreme weather events.The financial costs of such damages are very
large, and are met from public coffers and private risk insurance.Both these coverages will increase as SLR worsens.

Risk management entails investments that would both
minimize further warming and protect against damage when SLR threats are present.Such investment would help lower future
damage costs, and contribute significantly to the economy by increasing
employment in the industries involved.Thus
the risk management evaluation of SLR and its attendant damages leads to
activities that minimize future harms to coastal communities and expands
economic growth.Both of these outcomes
are highly desirable.

The developing world generally has higher rates of population growth and economic development than do developed countries.Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of China and India, the most important examples of developing countries, have grown 4- to 6-fold from 1980 to 2009.They are projected to continue growing rapidly in coming decades.

To
the extent that such development continues without constraint on
emissions of greenhouse gases, the world risks exceeding the limit of an
increase in worldwide average temperature of 2ºC agreed to by the
nations of the world.Warming
worldwide temperatures bring with them increased occurrence of extreme
weather events that cause high levels of physical and economic harms.Instead
of expanding use of fossil fuels, the nations of the world should agree
on new measures to “decarbonize” energy production and limit greenhouse
gas emissions, thereby constraining planetary temperature rise within
the agreed limit.

Introduction.The
use of energy, primarily provided by fossil fuels, across the globe has
been expanding inexorably over past decades, and is forecast to
continue growing by large amounts in coming decades.Correspondingly the rate of emission of resulting greenhouse gases is also rising dramatically.Most
of this growth originates in the developing countries of the world,
which generally are expanding both in their populations and in their
economic activity.Both factors contribute to expanding demand for energy.This post examines these issues.

Many
points are summarized in the main body of this post, with expanded
information and data provided in the Details section at the end.

Historical trends for energy use and CO2 emissions for China and India.China and India
are the largest countries among the non-OECD nations (OECD,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, considered to be
developed countries; see Note 1; non-OECD countries considered to be
developing countries).They have been growing rapidly in economic productivity, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions over the last two decades.This post exemplifies the expansion of the energy economies of developing countries by focusing on these two countries.

In 2009 China was the largest, and India was the fourth largest, consumer of energy in the world (U. S. Energy Information Agency (USEIA) India analysis, Nov. 21, 2011).As India’s population expands and the national economies of both countries grow (see population and GDP tables below in the section Projected future trends), energy demand is expected to rise significantly.

Past growth in use of fossil fuels by China and India is summarized here.For more details and graphics please see the Details section below.

Generally, use of fossil fuels, and especially of coal and oil, has grown 4- to 6-fold, or even more, from 1980 to 2009.Emissions of CO2, the greenhouse gas that is the product of burning fossil fuels, likewise grew at comparable rates.

Energy
use and emissions for the period from 1997, the year the Kyoto Protocol
was agreed on, and the last year in the graphs below, 2009, are
evaluated.The date of the Kyoto Protocol is used here, because, as developing countries, China and India were excluded from coverage by its terms while many developed countries would be bound by it.For this period:

coal use by China grew by 241%, and use by India grew by 195%;

China’s use of oil grew 213% from 1997 to 2009, and India’s grew by 176%; and

CO2 emissions from China grew by 250% between 1997 and 2009, and from India by 184%.

Coal is the predominant source of energy in China by far.Among renewable sources, hydroelectric power constituted 6% of energy consumption.

Coal is a large source of energy for India as well as for China.It is also significant that 24% of energy in India comes from combustible biomass, much of which originates from animal waste.

Neither country had large energy sources from renewable sources such as wind and solar power as of 2008-2009.

Projected future trends

World population growth.The USEIA issued its International Energy Outlook 2011 (IEO) in September 2011.The IEO projects population increases among countries of the world in its International Energy Outlook 2011.Data extracted from this report for the U. S., OECD, China and India include the following:

Projected future growth in energy use.(See Details for further information.)

Projections
of future energy use drawn from the IEO relate to the USEIA’s Reference
case, in which it is assumed that economic growth continues as at
present, and that no policy changes are made in the future that are not currently operative.This is frequently referred to as “business-as-usual”.

In its press release,
USEIA states that, largely because of strong economic growth in
developing countries (non-OECD countries) including the two leaders, China and India, the world’s energy use is expected to increase 53% between 2008 and 2035. Energy use is closely tied to the growth in economic activity; the table above shows that per capita GDP is projected to grow by 5.7%/yr in China, and by 4.6%/yr in India,
much more rapidly than in developed countries. These two countries
alone will be responsible for half of the world’s increase in energy
use.

An extract of data presented in the IEO is tabulated in the Details section at the end of this post, following the Discussion.A graphical presentation of projected energy use is shown here.

China and India consumed 21% of the world’s energy in 2008.Their energy use is expected to more than double over the period shown, constituting 31% of the world’s energy use in 2035.The
annualized rate of increase across all non-OECD countries is 2.3%,
whereas for the developed countries (OECD), the annualized rate of
increase is only 0.6% (see the graphic above).

Projected growth in CO2 emissions.The IEO includes predictions for growth in CO2 emissions originating from fossil fuels.Data from the table in the Details section are shown in the chart below.

Emissions from India grow by 208% from 2008 to 2035, and those from China grow by 198%.It is seen that emission growth from the U. S. and from the OECD as a whole are much more modest.The nations of the European Union, included in the OECD, have embarked on an ambitious program (linked here and here) to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050.Clearly this falls outside the assumptions of the USEIA Reference case, and is not reflected in the data for the OECD.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) published its World Energy Outlook 2011 (WEO 2011) on Nov. 9, 2011.It includes projections based on three scenarios.The Current Policy Scenario (CPS) assumes no additional emissions policies implemented beyond those already in place in 2011.This inaction is projected to lead to an increase in long-term global average temperature of 6ºC (10.8ºF) by 2035.The intermediate New Policies Scenario includes policies intended to reduce emissions, but not by enough to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels. It is projected to lead to an increase in long-term global average temperature of 3.5ºC (6.3ºF).The 450 Policy Scenario (450 PS) implements strict controls on new emissions that are intended to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentration
at 450 parts per million; this is the level deemed adequate to keep the
increase in long-term global average temperature within 2ºC (3.6ºF)
above the pre-industrial level.This upper limit is based on the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was issued in 2007.

The IEA graphic below compares projections of Total Primary Energy Supply by global regions for two scenarios, CPS and 450 PS.

Comparison of total world energy supply under the CPS and the 450 PS. Historical data for 1990 and 2008, and projected results under the two policies for 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2035.Blue:
OECD+ (developed countries); Green: OME, other major economies
(developing countries); Purple: OC, other countries (developing
countries); (see Note 2); Orange: Intl. bunkers, international air and marine transportation.

The chart above illustrates annual rates of use of energy, indicating that each year large amounts of the greenhouse gas CO2 are emitted.Under CPS, the annual rate keeps increasing, adding to atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at an ever-increasing rate.Under 450 the annual rate appears to level off, but each year additional CO2 still is emitted.

Nevertheless,
it is seen that by 2035, adopting the stringent 450 Policy Scenario
results in an overall projected decrease of 22% in total energy needed
compared to CPS.The
largest reduction in energy use is from the large economies of the
developing world (OME), about 23%; followed by reductions in energy use
by other developing countries (OC), about 17%, and reductions by OECD+
(developed countries) of about 13%.

Discussion

The Cancun Agreements were the final product (text and press release) of the 2010 conference, held under the auspices of the United Nations, and were approved by all 193 nations except one.

Among the commitments made in Cancun, developing countries, on a voluntary basis, submitted “nationally appropriate mitigation actions” planned for coming years to the United Nations supervisory body.Whereas many countries with smaller economies enumerated detailed goals and steps, countries such as China and India that are major emitters of greenhouse gases provided only brief, more generic, statements of goals (see the table below):

Country

Year for goal

Statement of goal

China

2020

Voluntary measures to reduce CO2 emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP;
emissions intensity) by 40–45% compared to 2005, increase the share of
non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15%, and to
increase forest coverage by 40 million hectares (99 million acres).

India

2020

Voluntary efforts to reduce emissions intensity of its GDP by 20–25% compared with the 2005 level, excluding emissions from agriculture.

Developing countries such as China have long stressed their improvement of energy intensity, a measure of increasing the efficiency of their use of energy. Yet, as seen in this post, their absolute amounts
of energy used and greenhouse gas emitted continue growing at
significant rates, responding to the prodigious rate of expansion of
their economies, improvement in energy intensity notwithstanding.

The IEA warned in WEO 2011, according to its press release,
that the world will enter “an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon
energy system” unless it implements strong new policies to lower future
emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.Recent developments that signal this urgency include the Fukushima nuclear accident which has deflated enthusiasm for nuclear energy, turmoil in the Middle East
which creates instability in oil supplies and costs, and a strong
increase in energy demand in 2010 which led to record high emissions of
CO2.

Fatih
Birol, IEA’s Chief Economist, points out that as time passes without
significant action to mitigate emissions, the world is becoming “locked
in” to a high-carbon energy infrastructure.Up
to the point of changing policy, all preexisting energy-producing and
–consuming infrastructure commits the world to continuing its
carbon-inefficient energy economy.They continue to emit CO2 annually during their service lifetimes according to their originally designed (less efficient) operating specifications. This is illustrated in the following graphic, which considers that 2010 is the year of commitment.

Lock-in of annual rates of CO2 emissions from energy-producing and energy-consuming physical installations as of 2010, shown in the various SOLID colors.Projected additional annual rates
of emissions from facilities newly installed after 2010, allowable
under the 450 Policy Scenario, are shown in the HATCHED GREEN area at
the top of the diagram. 450 envisions that the annual rate of emissions reaches a maximum by 2017 and then begins declining.

In
the graphic above emissions from committed infrastructure (solid
colors) are projected to decrease year by year as the various facilities
age and are removed from service.The graphic illustrates the maneuvering leeway (green shading) in annual CO2
emissions that are consistent with the 450 Policy Scenario, which is
intended to ensure that the long-term average increase in global
temperature is constrained to 2ºC (3.6ºF).The IEA press release states

“Four-fifths
of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450
Scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock…. Without
further action by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place
would generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to
2035. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in
cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an
additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the
increased emissions.”

The leeway emissions are the only portions of the world’s energy economy available for manipulation to reduce overall CO2 emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol, covering many developed nations but not the U. S., expires in 2012.It had been the goal of the U. N. conferences in Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun (2010) to negotiate a new treaty to follow Kyoto as it expired.But the nations of the world could not agree on terms.In 2011, at the Durban conference conference,
this discord was so fundamental that now the goal has been pushed back
to reach an agreement by 2015, with the objective of having it come into
force by 2020.Unfortunately, these dates are greatly extended from earlier timelines.They
permit greenhouse gases to be emitted unconstrained and to continue
accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere without sanctions in the interim.Because
of the delay, climate scientists are concerned that the global average
temperature will increase considerably more than previously hoped.This would mean severe changes in climate and weather, leading to increased numbers and severity of extreme weather events.

Greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem, demanding a global solution.Once emitted into the atmosphere, CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not carry a label indicating where on the globe they originated from.Emissions from any country become the greenhouse effect problem of every country.The
increase in the long-term global average temperature, and its attendant
extremes of weather events, damages caused and expenses incurred,
affect all the nations of the world.

Rather
than continuing the unabated expansion of the use of fossil fuels, and
incurring unforeseen expenses caused by extreme weather events, the
nations of the world should be decarbonizing their energy.Comparable
amounts of capital could be invested and comparable numbers of new jobs
could be created that would be directed to developing renewable sources
of energy or to implementing “zero-emissions” use of fossil fuels
(exemplified by the experimental technology of carbon capture and storage).It
behooves all nations to embark on greenhouse gas mitigation measures as
soon as possible, and not to continue “business-as-usual”.

===========================================

Details.

Historical trends for energy use and CO2 emissions for China and India.

Trends for coal and oil use in China and India
are shown below, as these are the principal fossil fuels used in each
country for electricity generation and transportation, respectively.Values for 1997, the year the Kyoto Protocol was agreed on, and the last year in the graph, 2009, are shown.The date of the Kyoto Protocol is used here, because, as developing countries, China and India were excluded from coverage by its terms.

Use of coal is shown below.

Use of coal 1980-2009, million short tons/year, for China and India.The scale for China runs from 0 to 3500, and that for India runs from 0 to 700.

From 1997 to 2009, coal use by China grew by 241%, and use by India grew by 195%.For a portion of this period, it is believed that China was commissioning new coal-fired electricity plants at the rate of about two per week.

Total use of oil in thousands of barrels/day between 1980 and 2009 for China and India.The scale for China runs from 0 to 9000, and that for India runs from 0 to 3500.

China’s use of oil grew 213% from 1997 to 2009, and India’s grew by 176%.

China’s use of petroleum increased a further 10% from 2009 to 2010, and is expected to grow at that rate in the next few years (USEIA China Analysis 2011). It produces considerable oil domestically, but also imports large amounts, currently about the same as is produced domestically.

The distribution of the sources of energy for China and India is shown in the chart below, for 2008 or 2009.

Coal is the predominant source of energy in China by far.Among renewable sources, hydroelectric power constituted 6% of energy consumption; China is assertively developing this source.The
total amount of hydroelectric power will expand considerably in 2012 as
all the turbines at the Three Gorges Dam begin operating.

The graphic shows that coal is a large source of energy for India as well as in China.It is also significant that 24% of energy in India comes from combustible biomass, much of which originates from animal waste.

Other
than hydroelectric power, neither country had large energy sources from
renewable sources such as wind and solar power as of 2008-2009.

Carbon dioxide emissions attributed to the burning of fossil fuels for the two countries are shown below.

Total carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels 1980-2009 for China and India, million metric tons/year.The scale for China runs from 0 to 8000, and that for India runs from 0 to 1800.

CO2 emissions from China grew by 250% between 1997 and 2009, and from India by 184%.It is noteworthy that, as expected, the trajectory of emissions from China closely resembles the pattern of its coal use (see earlier graphic, above).

Projected future growth in energy use.

Consumption of all fossil fuels is projected to grow dramatically during this period.Use of coal is projected to increase from 139 quadrillion Btu in 2008 to 209 quadrillion Btu in 2035, a change of 50%.China alone is responsible for 76% of the increase in use of coal.India
and other Asian countries also contribute significantly (19%) to this
increase, at least in part because coal is cheaper to use than other
sources of energy.

Use
of energy in transportation of people and goods is projected to grow
through 2035 in the Reference case, almost entirely from non-OECD
countries.As non-OECD
countries grow economically, the demand for transportation services
grows significantly, especially the demand for personal cars.Energy
consumption in transportation almost doubles, growing at a rate of
2.6%/yr in the non-OECD countries, but only at 0.3%/yr in OECD
countries.

Renewable
energy across the globe is provided largely by hydroelectric generation
and wind; solar generation currently plays a much smaller role.In
OECD countries, the major growth in renewables through 2035 is expected
to come from wind and solar power, as potential hydroelectric sites are
already fully developed.In non-OECD countries, however, hydroelectric generation is still growing at a fast pace as dam sites continue to be exploited.

Electricity generation in China is expanding very rapidly, and is expected to continue to do so (USEIA China Analysis 2011).In 2008 the generating capacity was 797 GW of which almost 80% was generated from coal.It
is expected that by 2020 the capacity will double to 1,600 GW, and to
generate 3 times as much electricity by 2035 as was produced in 2009.To accommodate this increased capacity, the Chinese are also aggressively expanding their transmission grid.Since
most of the generating capacity comes from conventional thermal sources
supplied largely by burning coal and natural gas, it is to be expected
that emissions of CO2 will increase correspondingly.The government of China expects that thermal generation capacity will increase from 652 GW in 2009 to 1,000 GW in 2020.Coal
will remain the principal fuel because of its domestic abundance,
although older plants will be decommissioned in favor of larger, more
efficient generators.Natural gas will play a small but increasing role in the future.

Among renewable sources, hydroelectric power plays a larger role in China than in any other country, and will continue to grow.For instance the massive Three Gorges Dam will become fully operational in 2012.Wind power is expanding at a rapid rate, but even so remains a miniscule fraction of China’s electric generating portfolio.

Electricity generation in India.India had about 177 GW of generating capacity in place in 2008 (USEIA India analysis).Conventional
thermal generation (mostly coal) provided 80% of that, with
hydroelectric generation providing most of the remainder.Nuclear and renewable power provided only a few percent of India’s electricity.About 35% of the population lacks access to electricity, mostly in rural areas, representing over 400 million people.Even in the main cities there are frequent blackouts.

Projections of future energy use under the USEIA’s Reference case are drawn from IEO and tabulated here.